D&D General Why defend railroading?

[Greg Benage]

I feel the same way...no matter what the party chooses to do, they really have no choice in the matter because the DM has rigged the consequences of every action to always point to the island.

Whoa! You just changed your thought experiment! If everything is rigged so the PCs have to go to the island, it's obviously railroading. Nothing in your original post suggested that, though.

I also don't think railroading is the only way a DM could remove player agency. Based on your example, one could imagine a sandbox filled with nothing but red herrings. No matter which "adventure hooks" the PCs choose, they never lead to anything. This isn't railroading, but there's also no meaningful choices or decisions: whatever you choose, nothing happens.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Every character that gets a name has this happen. Every single one. Yes, I absolutely actually do this. I'm a bit baffled that you think this is impossible, to be honest. At this point, I couldn't possibly have created more than, say, 200 characters over three years of play, and most of those were one-off characters that don't show up again because the party doesn't repeatedly visit the same instrument shop or continually drop by a far-off city's main magic library.

But did all those NPCs exist from the day the campaign started? Did you track the lives of the NPC who appeared once in session 20 for all the preceding 19 session to know what they were doing when the players finally met them? Did you track their life after that? Did you this to all the 200 NPCs? Also, certainly there are far more than 200 people in the setting? Or did you just perhaps make up what they were doing when the PCs met them?

Before the players ever arrive in a new location, I build such things. It's not that hard. Occasionally, yes, I do need to improvise stuff, but I do so only and specifically when the players throw a curveball....and only and specifically within the bounds of what is reasonable for the worldbuilding I've already done, unless I specifically either inform them directly that something has changed (exceedingly rare, but I've had to do it once or twice), or furnish them with an opportunity (usually several) to learn what has changed and how.

Yes, of course you do can do it in advance, but probably not in months and years advance and track the lives of all these NPCs off screen all this time to know what they're doing when the PCs arrive. The starting situation is just something you made up, and you made it up because the PCs decided to go there. Had they not decided to do so, you would not have reason to do so.

I honestly have no idea what this part is trying to say. Could you clarify? I feel like you're making a very important point here and I'm just flat not seeing it.

That some situations effectively just 'start' when the PCs arrive and it really doesn't matter when that is. And it kinda has to be so for the game to function.

 

[Don Durito]

Whoa! You just changed your thought experiment! If everything is rigged so the PCs have to go to the island, it's obviously railroading. Nothing in your original post suggested that, though.

I also don't think railroading is the only way a DM could remove player agency. Based on your example, one could imagine a sandbox filled with nothing but red herrings. No matter which "adventure hooks" the PCs choose, they never lead to anything. This isn't railroading, but there's also no meaningful choices or decisions: whatever you choose, nothing happens.

Something similar is, I've found, actually quite common. This is when the GM has something prepared and everything else is just dull. So you arrive in town and there's something happening in the noble quarter. If for some reason the party don't wan't to check it out they will wander around town encountering nothing interesting. It's not that the GM is forcing them to go visit noble quarter, it's just if they don't nothing will happen.

I've seen this sort of thing get quite acrimonius with the players complaining about railroading (because it certainly feels like it) and the GM insisting that it's not.

What this reveals is that running an open player drive game is not just about what you don't do.

 

[Asisreo]

I disagree. Information can be secret until discovered. The map was the hook to get them to the island where something else interesting was going to happen. The players had full agency to bite at the hook or not. I've planted authentic maps where they would have found the treasure, but the players didn't want to go on a long voyage and just sold the map. That portion of what I prepared went into the ether and the game moved on. Plus, there are divinations and such that could give them clues about how it will turn out. The players have choices.

They were locked out of relevant information no matter if they were to reasonable discover it. That's my problem, that nothing the players do would lead to them discovering the secret. At least without any logical reason beforehand. Its not giving them a choice at all. Follow the hook or nothing happens, and no information will be given to you other than something that was a lie anyways.

I'd be very disappointed that we decided to be very thorough and nobody in the realm of cartography expertise could identify a fake map.

 

[Greg Benage]

Something similar is, I've found, actually quite common. This is when the GM has something prepared and everything else is just dull. So you arrive in town and there's something happening in the noble quarter. If for some reason the party don't wan't to check it out they will wander around town encountering nothing interesting. It's not that the GM is forcing them to go visit noble quarter, it's just if they don't nothing will happen.

I've seen this sort of thing get quite acrimonius with the players complaining about railroading (because it certainly feels like it) and the GM insisting that it's not.

What this reveals is that running an open player drive game is not just about what you don't do.

Absolutely. But there's some magic words that make the problem (mostly) go away: "What do you plan to do next session?"

 

[CleverNickName]

Whoa! You just changed your thought experiment! If everything is rigged so the PCs have to go to the island, it's obviously railroading. Nothing in your original post suggested that, though.

Yeah, that was in response to another comment. I should have clarified.

I also don't think railroading is the only way a DM could remove player agency. Based on your example, one could imagine a sandbox filled with nothing but red herrings. No matter which "adventure hooks" the PCs choose, they never lead to anything. This isn't railroading, but there's also no meaningful choices or decisions: whatever you choose, nothing happens.

That's a good point also.

 

[thundershot]

I can’t read seven pages of this. So here’s my take. Everyone at the table is playing together. The DM is still one of the players in that respect. If the DM spent time preparing an adventure, the others should at least play along. I’m not saying have certain things you HAVE to do, but damn, if an NPC tells you that a child was kidnapped by werewolves and headed to the lost woods to the west, don’t say “we’re going east” when I’ve got a couple sessions worth of material for the west and basic notes for the East because the adventure hasn’t been planned for that yet. It forced me to come up with stuff on the fly and detracts the fun for me. You want grudge monsters? This is how you get grudge monsters. Lol

 

[CleverNickName]

"To the west lies the werewolf and the kidnapped child. In all other directions, including straight up and down, the party will find the tarrasque."

 

[Maxperson]

They were locked out of relevant information no matter if they were to reasonable discover it. That's my problem, that nothing the players do would lead to them discovering the secret.

That wasn't initially said, though. There's magic that the players can find and use to get answers if they want to verify it another way. If they don't opt to use those methods and then opt to go to the island instead of ignoring the map, that's on them. They had options and didn't use them.

At least without any logical reason beforehand. Its not giving them a choice at all. Follow the hook or nothing happens, and no information will be given to you other than something that was a lie anyways.

Actually, he said that the map MIGHT have been fake, or maybe others got to the treasure first. In any case, he had something else interesting on that island for them, and I'll bet that it included different treasure.

I'd be very disappointed that we decided to be very thorough and nobody in the realm of cartography expertise could identify a fake map.

IF it was fake. And even experts aren't perfect. Every so often you read about a painting in a museum being discovered as fake after many years of experts thinking it was real.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I feel the same way...no matter what the party chooses to do, they really have no choice in the matter because the DM has rigged the consequences of every action to always point to the island. That's generally the accepted definition of a railroad, I think. Any choices the players felt they had were just illusions.

But the interesting part of all of this to me: unless the DM reveals that plan...whether through accident or on purpose...the players will never know. They might grow suspicious, but a sufficiently clever DM can evade suspicion. They might push the boundaries, but a sufficiently flexible DM will know when to push back and when to stay flexible.

I really think that this "railroading" thing is only observable in hindsight. And the whole idea is fascinating to me. When I was a TA in college, I read several essays on the psychology of baseball. I think that it would be interesting to read one on the psychology involved in tabletop RPGs.


Hooray! My model is functioning as intended!

Sorry, meant to reply to this but got focus on Crimson Longinus. My core problem is mostly that....I just don't believe any DM is good enough to truly evade suspicion forever, and even making people suspicious is Bad News. Because if people suspect they're on an illusionism-based railroad, it's going to cause some damage, even if only a little. DMs are not infinitely clever, players outnumber them, and time and reflection are on the players' side, not the DM's. And even if it is only "observable" in hindsight, it is possible for players to start testing for it once they suspect it. For example, trying to intentionally make curveballs. Throwing more siutations at the DM where they have to think fast and invent stuff on the spot etc. A player can do that while remaining totally in-character (depending on the specific character, of course), and I just don't quite buy that any DM, let alone many DMs, can withstand such scrutiny for long.

TL;DR: The DM just has to mess up once for illusionism to be a problem. The players have the whole campaign to figure it out. The more you use it, the more likely the illusion falls, and the more work you must do to keep it secret. Maybe if you always run shortish games, you can dodge that bullet. I don't believe anyone can dodge it for longish ones, let alone full years (like my game has been).

But did all those NPCs exist from the day the campaign started? Did you track the lives of the NPC who appeared once in session 20 for all the preceding 19 session to know what they were doing when the players finally met them? Did you track their life after that? Did you this to all the 200 NPCs? Also, certainly there are far more than 200 people in the setting? Or did you just perhaps make up what they were doing when the PCs met them?

As I said, this is for named people only. If someone is named, or gets a name, I develop stuff. Yes, sometimes me fleshing out a character only happens because the players took interest--but again, this is respecting player choice by saying, "hey, if you take the time and effort to find out about this, you will actually find stuff out!" It would be railroading to do the opposite, to insist that there were nothing to see and stonewall any attempt to find out about stuff outside the narrow preplanned scope.

Also, and this is really really really important to me, you're rather straying from the original statement. You originally spoke of events happening purely because the PCs show up. Now, you're expanding that out to "absolutely any detail whatsoever that wasn't perfectly planned out from the instant you conceived of the campaign," which...yes, I agree is a thing. You've made the statement valid by heavily weakening what it is you're saying.

Story events do not simply just happen because the PCs showed up somewhere. The world is not exclusively interesting in the location the PCs happen to be, and completely static everywhere else. That is what I was pushing back against. Specifically, you said:

Also, let's consider another super common form of 'illusionism' that most GMs do and do not really consider it as such though it is basically the same thing than the quantum ogre, except the thing illusionised is not the location it is the time. The interesting thing happens when the PCs are around, regardless of when exactly that is. I'm pretty sure almost every GM does this.

That's a far cry from "people that the PCs interact with have their lives more fully fleshed-out than people they don't." What you spoke of is "the world only happens where the PCs are." What I'm talking about is the PCs digging into the world as they go. Big, big difference.

Yes, of course you do can do it in advance, but probably not in months and years advance and track the lives of all these NPCs off screen all this time to know what they're doing when the PCs arrive. The starting situation is just something you made up, and you made it up because the PCs decided to go there. Had they not decided to do so, you would not have reason to do so.

I always try to be at least a full month (4 sessions) ahead of where my PCs happen to be. Of course, I often fall behind because I'm human. But my goal is always to have at least a full month of the current events/story/dungeon/etc. ready, and the first two to four sessions of the next one as well. These plans naturally adjust, usually because the PCs take longer to do things than my neat timetables expect, so I often have more leeway than I "allowed" myself. Again, it's really not that hard, and I am not a DM who is rigidly planning out absolutely everything. I force myself to be adaptive and responsive to player choices. On occasion, they throw me a big enough curveball that I have to do a couple days of intensive prep work, but these are all friends of mine, so we know each other well enough to have a reasonable idea of what one another is likely to do.

That some situations effectively just 'start' when the PCs arrive and it really doesn't matter when that is. And it kinda has to be so for the game to function.

No situation "effectively just 'start(s)'" when the PCs arrive. Their arrival may catalyze a situation already in progress, or it may reveal more details than were already known, or it may draw out previously dormant actors, or (etc.), but it is absolutely NEVER the case that simply by showing up, Plot Happens to that location instead of some other location.

Individual characters may get names (since names are now needed--naturalistically, they already had names, I just didn't assign them), some backstory, etc. But those aren't "situations effectively just 'start[ing].'" That's "a situation is already happening, we're just getting introduced to what it is and why it's happening."